BOB2's comment about an immediate 50% loss of ridership when rail transit was switched to bus in the 50s-60s, is right on.

It happened that way all over the country. But as evident that public preference for rail over bus, was way back then; it is even more evident in recent times. IN California, rail bonds rather consistently get passed by the voters; whereas, road bonds fail, unless tied in with rail projects. Sadly, Caltrans (highway dept) officials have gotten savvy to that, and won't themselves put rail bond issues to the legislature, without the road projects being included; causing the public to resort to the very flawed California initiative process - but I digress. . . . .

Indeed, many of the line closures of the past were severely protested by the public at the time, especially closures of publicly owned lines. I still remember the Mayor of San Francisco's failed attempts to close down one Muni line after another. He got away with the Geary line and the chopping of the California St Cable Car, among a few others; but by then grass roots opposition had grown way too intense, and the closures ceased with the then Mayor stepping down.

Private lines, severely weakened by new automobile competition, and several years of economic depression, were mostly bought out for a song by GM front companies; then summarily substituting buses for rail (often with no notice whatever to anyone), followed immediately by steep sudden drops in ridership.

I believe that except for one very notable court proved exception, most of the impetus to eliminate rail was governmental, From Eisenhower's sworn vengeance against anything rail on the one hand, down to city hall on the other hand. Elimination of street trackage was considered to be grand "Progress"; especially at city hall. It was the future, and so everyone needed to "Get with the times".

But the majority of citizens would not ride the buses, instead choking the highways with the only other alternative available - more cars. It is pretty obvious that local officials failed miserably to anticipate that; even though GM. Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, and Signal Oil, probably had that in mind all along.

That the public still prefers rail over the bus, is still quite evident, given the immediate more-than-doubling of ridership that usually occurs when a new rail system replaces bus lines. The first opportunity for such a direct ridership comparison was of course, on BART's new (1973) operation from Concord to The City, which replaced a very good Greyhound service. Greyhound operated a very nice inter-city style bus out of Concord to The City approx every 30-60 seconds during the commute, and every 30 minutes offpeak - with everyone seated.

The day BART started, it operated weekday only (6am-8pm), short, extremely overcrowded trains, once every 10 minutes, on no particular schedule, with a required transfer to decrepit off brand charter buses in Oakland; in order to complete the Transbay trip. Greyhound ceased operation of their far superior service that same day. But never mind the crappy BART service of those days; from the very first day, BART ridership still exceeded 10,000 per day; whereas, Greyhound had been averaging only 4,200. Since then, BART's ridership on that line alone, has nearly quadrupled, Similar scenarios have played out all over the country time and again.

Probably more on the mind of city transportation officials nowadays though, is the plain economics of the problem. The simple fact that rail costs less to operate per passenger (anywhere there is sufficient volume to justify it), is a fact no longer lost on local officials.

First suppose that a route carries only 150 riders into a city per hour, on 15 minute headways; and if we assume a nearly 2 hour round trip, it would require 8 buses and 8 drivers in service at a time, to operate the line. But suppose that 1500 riders per hour are to be carried. That would require at least 80 buses and 80 drivers on duty at once. That would be 30-60 second headway, similar to the Greyhound case mentioned above.

3-car light rail trains on the other hand, operating at 10 minute headway, could carry them all on a faster schedule (90min round trip); while requiring only 9 3-car sets and 9 drivers - Not the 80 drivers that a bus system would need. While the bus driver's productivity in the above example is only 37.5 passengers per hour, the light rail motorman's is 160 pph.

Even more striking, is BART's C-line operation of today, carrying about 11,000 passengers per hour during a 3 hour rush (33,000 total per rush). That translates to 12 trains per hour (5 minute headway), each carrying 900-1000 people, with just one train operator, and a driver productivity of over 900 pph. Since buses could not possibly get back in time for a 2nd load, those 33,000 riders would require 733 buses and 733 drivers in the morning, and then again in the evening. That is one bus every 15 seconds on the Bay Bridge. Big fat hairy chance of that ever being manageable! let alone even remotely affordable! Especially when you consider the similar loads being carried by each of BART's 3 other Eastbay routes to The City.

The bottom line is that while the local officials of yore were all for "Progress", the "new way", the wave of "the future", and all that malarky; today, they are more pragmatic and practical. They have discovered the reality, that while it may cost considerably more to install a rail service (depending upon how you do it), than to install a bus route; above a certain relatively low ridership threshold, the costs of operating said system per passenger, declines sharply if you use rail, compared to continuing to do it with buses. They have discovered that it is simply a case of "Pay Now - Or Pay Later"; and that paying high capital costs up front, is much more sustainable in the long run, than paying high operating costs forever - later.

OPB